Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Apollo 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No consensus to promote at this time - Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Apollo 15

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk)

Apollo 15 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... after months of fitful work, I think it's ready for review and I'd like it looked at. Thanks.Wehwalt (talk) 13:03, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • Unrelated to source review, but the article has a very strange display with large gaps in text on my browser.
Where in particular?--Wehwalt (talk) 08:42, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is a long gap between "Support crew" (ending with "he was the only astronaut from that group to make it to the Moon, with Apollo 17.[8]") and "Backup crew". I think it is related to image placement with regards to the text. By the way, I'm using a 13-inch MacBook. Catrìona (talk) 04:14, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see this too on my 11-in laptop. I think you need to remove those two {{clear}} templates. You'll get sandwiching of text between two columns of images later in the article but that could be dealt with by putting some images in galleries -- better than the huge amounts of white space we have now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:12, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. I put them in there to minimize the white space to the right of the lists ... oh well ...--Wehwalt (talk) 08:16, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • ISBN style is not consistent; I think the longer (new) ISBN numbers with hyphens are preferred
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:09, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Publisher and location are not consistent (eg, Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press vs New York: Viking.)
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:09, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I still see one issue: Chichester, United Kingdon (sic) vs. London, UK Catrìona (talk) 04:14, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:54, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Harland is missing publisher and location
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:12, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've cut that source as we do not actually use it.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:42, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inconsistent use of {{cite book}} vs. {{citation}}
    There is one use of citation because cite does not handle a single author's contribution within a compendium of chapters by different authors well. I've used this in articles that have gone through FAC, for example, Sovereign (British coin). If there is an alternative means, I will look at it and likely adopt it.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:32, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • What I usually do is use the |chapter parameter: i.e. Ramkissoon, Reuben A. (2006). "An Astrophilatelic Rendering of the Conquest of Space: Part 3, Project Apollo—the Moon Landing Missions". The Congress Book 2006. State College, PA: American Philatelic Congress, Inc. pp. 191–211.
        I use the contribution parameter: i.e. Chaikin, Andrew (2007). "Live from the Moon: The Societal Impact of Apollo". In Dick, Steven J.; Launius, Roger D. (eds.). Societal Impact of Spaceflight (PDF). Washington, D.C.: NASA. OCLC 175218028. SP-4801. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:56, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • However, it does not appear to make a difference to display, so I guess it doesn't matter. Catrìona (talk) 04:14, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall, seems pretty heavy on primary sources. But I will have to look closer.

 In progress Catrìona (talk) 00:16, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks. I'll look at those. I'm not sure the Lunar Flight and Lunar Surface journals are primary sources due to the many annotations, comments, etc. I should note that Apollo 8 (a FA) and Apollo 11 (A-class and a FA candidate) also use the flight journals, mission report, press releases, etc.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:24, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No identifiers (isbn, oclc, doi, jstor, etc.) on "Apollo 15 Mission Report", Ramkissoon, or Winick
  • Having checked the primary sources, I think the use of memoirs falls within WP:PRIMARY, and the NASA official sources can be assumed to be reliable. All of the sources appear reliable and used within guidelines, so I'm going to support on sources. Catrìona (talk) 04:14, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    In case you did not discover this already, the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal content is hosted on NASA's website but is not NASA content. I know you supported already, just letting you know if you are interested and did not already know. Kees08 (Talk) 22:44, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hawkeye7

[edit]
Lead
  • "spent three days on the Moon" I would say: "three Earth days", since a lunar day is 28 Earth days long.
I've massaged the need for the mention out of the passage instead.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "scientific instruments in the SIM bay of the service module" Suggest "Scientific Instrument Module (SIM) Bay"
I've at least piped to service instrument module, but I think we have to mention it is in the service module, and for the sake of brevity, I've piped it.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest adding that the mission also featured the first deep space EVA.
Done.
Background
  • "a plan of ten total lunar landings" Suggest: "for ten planned landings"
The word "planned" duplicates "plan" shortly thereafter, so I've omitted it here and said "hoped-for total"
Crew and key Mission Control personnel
  • All of the Excess Eleven support crew eventually flew, although I think one died climbing Mount Everest
Yeah, but I don't think it's necessary to go that far. All three of the support crew flew, that's as far as the article on 15 needs to go.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Planning and training
  • Apollo 11's backup crew had been designated for Apollo 13.
  • "but often there were higher priorities" NACA had been a engineering research organisation, and priority developing working spacecraft.
Yes, this was important, but the point is that Shepard, for example, was not interested in geology. Do we need to say more?
  • "contacted Caltech geologist" Link Caltech
Done.
  • "due to the explosion that damaged the Apollo 13 spacecraft" And caused the mission to be aborted.
Added.
  • You need to define CMP and LMP. Suggest doing so in the previous section
What do you mean, define? We have a pipe from "Position" above the crew's names and jobs to the astronaut ranks article.
  • Do we need the pic of group five? We already have one of the crew
I'm just looking to fill whitespace in this listy area of the article.
  • "(During a mission the capsule communicators (CAPCOMs), always fellow astronauts, were the only people who normally would speak to the crew.)" Suggest moving this up to the CAPCOM section.
Done.
Mission highlights
  • In the caption of the pic of Endeavour, I would mention that the SIM bay is visible
Fine.
  • I expected to find mention of the fact that Falcon carried a falcon feather from its namesake, the USAF Academy mascot (see Air Force Falcons#Team name origin) and Endeavour carried a block of wood from its namesake, HMS Endeavour (and hence the Br-spelling of "Endeavour"). In fact, this is the first time we read the names of the spacecraft; they should have been mentioned above. (Reading further down, I discovered the bit about the falcon feather, but still think it belongs above.) (Aha. Found Endeavour right down the bottom.)
I've added it further up.
  • "This rock, an anorthosite, is believed to be part of the early lunar crust" Uh no, it was believed to be, but subsequent analysis showed it was younger. No piece of the Moon's original crust has ever been found. (Or, for that matter, of the Earth's.)
I just said early, I did not say original. And I'm aware 17 brought home an older one.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hardware
  • Move this section up the top, as it introduces a lot of stuff talked about later.
Fine.
Mission insignia
  • Suggest moving this up the top too.
I feel it gets in the way and would rather leave it where it is.
  • Do we need the NASA nav bar? It doesn't have Apollo 15 in it like the others.
See discussion at Talk:Apollo 15
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:52, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:49, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
All images have appropriate licences. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:11, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So the images are good to go? Other than the discussion above, of course.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, images are all good to go. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Kees08

[edit]

Starting my review below Kees08 (Talk) 01:06, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Citation comments

  • Citation 3: missing publisher
  • Citation 5: was last updated December 11, 2003, if you want to use that as the date field. There is also an author listed
  • Citation 7: should be in the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal section, although if I had to pick, I would remove those sections and just have one references section
  • Citation 8: can add Mark Wade as author if you like
  • Citation 10: expand with this info (and combine w/ similar references, if applicable)
  • Citation 12: Work field should be Ars Technica
  • Citation 30: Expand with this. Apply to other citations as needed
I wasn't sure how to format this. Do you have any suggestions (also the adjacent ref).--Wehwalt (talk) 12:41, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation 37: could probably go without having that giant quote
  • Citation 38: combine w/ citation 37
  • Citation 41: is Apollo Flight Journal
  • Citation 60: I usually stylize as Space.com but probably does not matter
  • Citation 62: although posted by a CNN correspondent, presumably blogs have less editorial oversight than articles. Could you find a non-blog source?
  • Citation 68: should be Houston Press
  • Citation 69: add agency=Associated Press
  • Bibliography section: I have been told if one has OCLC, give them all OCLC. I may be misremembering, but I believe you should add them where possible.
I have added them, where I could, where no ISBN is available. Two philatelic sources seem to lack either. As I got them from the American Philatelic Society Library, I'm inclined to think they are reliable.
  • Could you add a link to the Apollo 15 Mission Report?
  • Format all dates the same (if access dates will be in YEAR-MO-DY format, all of access dates have to be)

Other comments

  • Are we cool with the gallery? I always remove them and verify all of it is on Commons, if allowed. From Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Image_galleries, However, a gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. Since you adequately explained the mission in the article, I think you can move the gallery to the Commons. Thoughts on that?
If the gallery should go, I would likely use at least some of the images to illustrate the article. Certainly the hammer/feather.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:35, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like the best course of action, if you agree. Kees08 (Talk) 01:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think it better to put these historic films at appropriate points in the article, or most of them. We have a wealth of them, the reader isn't best served by having them at the bottom. I'll work on this, and on your other comments. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think I've got everything except where noted. I have decided to leave the journals grouped, there is no harm in it and it might be useful to some readers. I've moved most of the gallery oggs into the main text, except the one showing the takeoff from the Moon through the LMP's window, due to lack of room, but as I do include the takeoff from the camera on the LRV, that should be sufficient. Thank you for the very thorough review.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:04, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Apollo_15&oldid=879725556"